Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s Garbage, the City and Death: Renewed Antagonisms in the Complex Relationship between Jews and Germans in the Federal Republic of Germany Andre i S. Markovits; Seyla Benhabib; Moishe Postone New German Critique, No. 38, Special Issue on the German-Jewish Controversy (Spring - Summer, 1986), 3-27. Stable URL: hhup/finks jstor.orgh sici=0094-033X%28198621 %2F22%290%3A38%3C3%3ARWEGTC% 3E2.0,CO%3B2. ‘New German Critique is currently published by New German Critique, ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hhup:/www.jstororg/about/terms.hml. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hutp:/www jstor-org/journals/nge.html Each copy of any printed page of su wt of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or transmission, JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to ercating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ ‘Sun Nov 13 21:39:36 2005,Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s Garbage, the City and Death: Renewed Antagonisms in the Complex Relationship Between Jews and Germans in The Federal Republic of Germany* On December 17, 1985 about 40 people gathered atthe Cen- ter for European Studies to hear presentations on various aspects ofthe controversy surrounding the Fassbinder play, Garbage, the City and Death, (Der Miil, die Stadt und der Tod). The event was sponsored by two of the Center's study groups: The Jews in Modern Europe Study Group and The German Study Group. "rhe immediate context for this seminar was seb the Biburg incident and its aftermath in the late spring of 1985. Observers on both sides ofthe Atlantic were disturbed by the actions and statements of President Reagan and Chancellor Kohl and were disappointed by the concomitant lack of protest on the part of much ofthe West German Left. Two of te panel members in the CES roundtable contributed to this intercontinental debate Moishe Postone’s essay “Bitburg und die Linke,” published in Pflasterstrand on June 1, 1985 and Andrei S. Markovit’let- ter “Bin offener Brief an die deutsche Linke: Klilich versagt” appearing in die tageszeitung on May 9, 1985, both elicited lively and varied responses and fanned the flames of controversy ‘over this sensitive topic in West Germany itself The text of the following discussion was edited by Stephen Hubbell and Andrei 8, Markovits ANDREIS. MARKOVITS: Letme start my presentation, which — as ‘you will see — bears personal hue, by admitting that perhaps never in myacademic career have I been so uncertain aboutwhere I stand on an intellectual or emotional issue as I am concerning the Fassbinder con- troversy. I continue to oscillate from one extreme position to the other *A Roundtable Discussion with Andrei S. Markovits, Seyla Benhabib and Moishe Postone held on December 17, 1985 at the Center for European Studies, Harvard University 24 Garbage, the City and Death ina matter of minutes. Thus, numerous times a day 1am outraged that a play of such low artistic quality, filled with anti-Semitic invective, should be performed in one of the major intellectual centers of the very country whose immediate ancestors destroyed more than half my family in their brutal murder of six million Jews. But with equal fre- quency and similar emotional intensity 1 am also disturbed by the fact that freedom of speech and artistic expression was clearly curtailed by the Jews (some of them my friends), who occupied the stage of the Schauspielhaus on the night of October 31, 1986 thereby violating one of the most valuable attainments of advanced capitalism governed by a liberal polity. In my father’s eyes — and I had a number of heated con- versations about this event via telephone calls to his home in Vienna — I have degenerated into little more than a Nazi lover. Yet, at the same time, some of my greenish, pacifist and long-haired friends of the “scene” in Bockenheim (in Frankfurt) and Kreuzberg (in West Berlin) have angrily placed me among a crowd of conservative and intolerant book burners. Strangely, but perhaps tellingly, part of me feels them both to be right. By recounting the experiences of some of my relatives in Frankfurt since the early 1960s, hope to illustrate the larger historical dilem- ‘mas, sociological developments and political problems confronting much of Frankfurt’s and the Federal Republic’s Jewish community. My father’s first cousin arrived in Frankfurt from Budapest in 1960. He was accompanied by his wife and two children, a fourteen year-old girl and a twelve year-old boy. He had survived the horrors of the death camps, where he lost both of his parents, several siblings, as well as aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins. In short, he found himself virtually alone in 1945, Ready to start a new life “somewhere in the West,” he arrived in Frankfurt, a temporary “way station” on his jour- ney to his final destination, which was unknown at the time; Israel, Canada, the United States and South America were among the pos- sibilites. Whatever the eventual destination, Frankfurt was a necessary — but despised — stop which allowed him to collect some financial restitution via the institutionalized repentence conceived and negoti- ated by Nahum Goldmann, the late father ofthis Centers director, My father’s cousin got stuck in Frankfurt. The temporary way station became a permanent one without ever developing into anything even faintly resembling home. Having grown up in a similarly ambivalent and temporary atmosphere in Vienna, I remember that my family, like iy Frankfurt relatives, had liule furniture in our apartment because we thought we would be leaving at any minute. Thus, a relatively wealthy lawyer in Frankfurt — and in my father’s case a relatively wealthy businessmen in Vienna — both lived in quarters well below.Markovits, Benbabib, Postone 5 their means and “station.” Consumption was limited to highly mobile and transitory goods such as fast and fancy cars, or taken outside the confines of these Nazi successor states via vacations in Israel, schooling inthe United States, and trips to England and France. The alienation of these ewo men from their respective cultures went so deep that, despite their fanatically anti-communistattitudes and contempt for the Russians, they would passionately root for visiting Soviet soccer teams during their matches against West German and Austrian teams respectively. The only power and identity which these two East European Jews possessed in their environments was that of victims. Letme givean example of this. When my father and I first visited our relatives in Frankfurt in 1964, we found a parking ticket on our hosts’ car as we exited from a movie theater. Irate about this, my father’s cousin drove to the police station and demanded to speak to the officer who had penalized him for parking in a clearly prohibited area. With- ‘outattempting to justify his actions — indeed boasting of his contempt for what he called ‘‘this Nazi law” — he asked the officer in a hostile tone whether he (the officer) had taken showers during the war. When the startled policeman, who was probably in his mid-fifites, answered affirmatively, my father’s cousin shot back: “Well I just wanted you to know that you washed with soap which you Nazis made out of my family.” Shocked and speechless, the policeman tore up the parking ticket. My father’s cousin, exiting triumphantly from this Frankfurt police station, had been the beneficiary of what has been called the “Auschwitz bonus,” or as Giinther Riihle, the Schauspielhaus’ direc- tor was later to put it, the “Schonzeit” or “no hunting season.” Iremember distinctly being very upset hearing for the first time that Jews were made into soap by the Nazis. Confronting my father on this ‘matter, he confirmed what I had taken to be hyperbole of his cousin’s rather flamboyant style. I detected that my father was also upset about the parking ticket incident, though for different reasons than I was. In part, he was jealous that his cousin could cash in so profitably on this “Auschwitz bonus,” which was non-existent in Austria. My father was also worried that in the not too distant future this “Auschwitz bonus” would be depleted in the Federal Republic as well, especially once police officers such as the one who rightfully penalized his cousin began to be drawn from a generation which was born after 1945. My father’s cousin made his living in Frankfurt as a real-estate lawyer. Atfirst, he dealt mainly with rentals. Later he became involved in developing, reconstructing and “rehabing” various properties in- creasingly on behalf of the city of Frankfurt. He was especially proud of, the factthat he attained financial success without having to resort to the “dirty Frankfurt,” the despised Bahnhofiviertel, one of the Federal Repub-6 Garbage, the City and Death lic’s most notorious red-light districts, where a number of establish- ments were owned by Jews — Polish Jews as my father’s cousin was always quickto point out, trying to distance himselfand his Hungarian Jewish compatriots from their own version of Ostjuden. ‘After his death in the early 1970s, his son took over the business. My second cousin, just like his father, has continued to lead a completely apolitical life in the Frankfurt neighborhood where he rents a small officeand an even smaller apartment. His distancing from any political controversy and entirely privatized existence extended to all issues related to Jews as well. Be it the annual neo-Nazi demonstrations on June 17, the Dewtschlandtag, many of which occurred in Frankfurt barely two blocks away from his apartment; the Majdanek trial in Diisseldorf; the frequent SS reunions; the proposed sale of Leopard tanks to Saudi Arabia; Ernst Jiinger’s receipt of the Goethe Prize, Frankfurt’s most prestigious award for civilians; or the shameful episode surrounding the Bitburg visit; none of these could induce my cousin to shed his strictly-guarded privacy in Frankfurt and take a public stand on behalf of causes which have long concerned him. This is understand- able, however, since an individual is unlikely to get involved in a place which he never considered home and always perceived as a way station. But the Fassbinder controversy suddenly changed all this. Although he did not participate in the occupation of the Schauspielhaus stageon the night of October $1, 1985, my cousin demonstrated in front of the theater on behalf of the stage occupantsand demanded the permanent banning of Garbage, the City and Death. Clearly, this incident must have touched something very deep in my cousin for him to abandon the comfort of his well-heated Mercedes and walk up and down ona cold Frankfurt sidewalk with a placard around his neck. Was it because he, like Fassbinder’s “Rich Jew,” was a real estate developer making deals with the city? Was it because he, too, was rich and a Jew? Or was it pethaps that for the first time the controversy surrounding the Fass- binder play conveyed to him — albeit in a rather paradoxical way — that Frankfurt was indeed his home? ‘The city of Frankfurt, like the Federal Republicasa whole, experienced a major economic boom in the early 1970s. Led by the SPD, which Ulrich Greiner described as fotschritswitig (obsessed with progress), the city's construction industry benefitted immensely from the grand design which was to transform Frankfurt into a “Main-hattan,” a repre- sentation of the marriage between reform-minded social democracy and modem, exportoriented capital. Frankfurt became a living example‘Markovits, Benhabib, Postone 7 of Modell Deutschland at its best. Although ranking as one of Social Democracy's “successes,” Frankfurt also highlighted some of its con- tradictions. Specifically, the city had concomitantly become one of Europe's most important centers of a radicalized and bohemian counterculture, part of which undoubtedly owed its existence to the SPD's “reform euphoria” of the time. The housing battles raging in Frankfurt’s Westend — a district in which much of Frankfurt’s Jewish bourgeoisie resided before 1983 — were thus in many ways manife tations of the irreconcilable conflicts troubling relations between Old and New Left: the former represented by a Technologieglubigheit and Technologichirigheit as evidenced by its enthusiastic support for edifices of steel and glass; and the latter characterized by ts bitter opposition to the construction of what it regarded as ahistorical, anti-social, anti- ‘communal, and anti-human “‘monstro-cities.” Enter Rainer Werner Fassbinder (1946-1982), who lived in Frank- fart during the housing battles, having arrived from Munich in 1974. He joined the Theater am Turm (TAT), an avant-garde experimental theater group led by a very able director named Hilmar Hoffmann. Fassbinder was fascinated by Frankfurt politics and theater for a brief. period, wanting to merge the two, only to give up this experiment abruptly in 1976 and return to his more familiar medium of film. Gar- age, the City and Death ranks s the mostimportant— and controversial — legacy of Fassbinder’s brief Frankfurt interlude. As was his habit, Fassbinder wrote Garbage in a workaholic frenzy during an overnight flight back to Frankfurt in March 1975. The play vwas loosely based on a book by Gerhard Zwerenz, a left-wing intellectual who — like Fassbinder — had also migrated from Munich to Frank- furt. Zwerenz was hard at work on a trilogy dealing with the problems ofurban renewal, city modernization, and all the contradictory aspects of the SPD's ortschritiswiitige Stadtepoltik described above. The first part of the trilogy, entitled Bericht aus dem Landesinneren |Report from the Coun- ty), appeared in 1972 with the second part, called Die Erde ist un- bewohnbar wie der Mond (The Earth is as Uninhabitable as the Moon}, pub- lished one year later. Having read both, I am of the opinion that these are sophisticated and very knowledgeable analyses of Frankfurt’s con- struction problems at the time. Jewish developers do appear, as do bankers, social democracy’scity planners and other key participants in this concerted effort of urban modernization in Frankfurt’s Westend. Zwerenz in no way portrays the Jews in his books unfavorably. Zwerenz’s main Jewish character, Abraham Mauerstamm, may appear as some- ‘what of an equivocating and weak figure, but he is certainly devoid of any evil intentions. Moreover, Zwerenz's world is populated by ex- plicitly “good Jews,” such as the character based on Fritz Bauer, the8 Garbage, the City and Death prosecutor in Frankfurt’s Auschwitz trial of the 1960s. If anything, ‘Zwerenz’s culprits are the banks and their international financial net- ‘works, most certainly not the Jews. The third volume, which has yet to appear, was to have dealt with the conflicts in greater detail. The Fassbinder controversy has accounted in large part for Zwerenz’s failure to complete Part 3. In Fassbinder’s dramatization of Zwerenz's work, Mauerstamm becomes the “Rich Jew.” This figure becomes the link between a cor- rupt, hypocritical aitd ruthless establishment representing Frankfurt’s modernizers on the one hand, and a milieu of social outcasts consist ing of prostitutes, pimps, transvestites and sado-masochists on the ther. Ewerenz objected to Fassbinder's creation of the “Rich Jew,” whereupon Fassbinder promised to rewrite the role calling the new character “Rich Poor Jew” thereby trying to convey that after Ausch- witz even the richest Jew remained poor as well. But nothing came of this. Fassbinder’ play was never rewritten for TAT because the author left Frankfurt for Munich after an extended sojourn in West Berlin. Fassbinder did, however, write a screenplay based on Zwerenz’s Die Erde ist unbewohnbar wie der Mond which — according to Zwerenz — remained very close to the original novel In early 1976, the controversy heated up. Suhrkamp, one of West Germany's most prestigious publishing companies, released Garbage, the City and Death at the beginning of March. On March 12, Helmut Schmitz, a noted Fassbinder critic, wrote a devastating review of the play in the Frankfurter Rundschaw, the Federal Republic's leading left. liberal daily and cross-town rival of the country’s main conservative newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). Exactly one week after the appearance of Schmitz’s article, Joachim Fest, one of the FAZ’s senior editors, published a scathing review of his own entitled “Reicher Jude von links.” In this piece Fest argued that Fassbinder’s Garbage was the most blatant manifestation of a long-simmering and increasingly noticeable left-wing anti-Semitism, which was gaining acceptance in the fashionable circles of West Germany's intelligentsia, precisely the circles where Fassbinder films and Suhrkamp books had become de rigueur. (Itshould be added that this article was authored by the same person who a few years earlier had written a rather apologetic biography of Hitler which initiated the notorious “Hitler wave” of the mid-1970s). Whether as a consequence of these attacks or for other reasons, Suhrkamp discontinued the publication of Garbage in the spring of 1976. ‘The play was nevertheless made into a film which was directed by Daniel Schmid and released in 1979. Entitled Schatten der Engel it is regarded as cold and sober, though not anti-Semitic, by several critics‘Markonits, Benhabib, Postone 9 on whose opinions I have to rely, never having seen the movie myself. But this did not relegate the stage version to oblivion. Seven attempts were made between 1976 and 1985 to have Garbage performed in. various Frankfurt theaters (Fassbinder stipulated that the world pre- miere could only be held in Frankfurt, Paris, or New York.) The last of these attempts, before the current controversy, took place in 1984 ‘when Garbage was to have been performed in Frankfurt’s newly refur- bished and renovated Old Opera. One of the most vociferous oppo- nents of this project was Giinter Rithle, who — as the feuilleton editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung — used his considerable positional prestige to polemicize successfully against the showing of the play. Indeed, it was partly on account of Riihle’s passionate opposition to the performance of the play that the director of the Old Operaresigned his post. Then something very bizarre happened. In early 1985 Rithle left the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to become the director Frankfurt’s prestigious Schauspielhaus. Once there, he promptly placed Garbage ‘on the theater’s fall schedule for reasons which seem to elude any reasonable explanation. Opening night was set for Thursday, October 31, 1985, ‘As we know, the play was not performed that night. About 30 mem- bers of the Frankfurt Jewish community occupied the stage just before the play was to begin, unfurling a banner which read “Subventionierter Antisemitismus” (“Subsidized anti-Semitism”). Engaging in a debate with the audience, the actors and the theater management, the Jewish protesters held their ground and succeeded in stopping the perfor- mance. Fearing further disruptions, Rithle reluctantly canceled all other scheduled performances of Garbage at the Schauspielhaus. Never- theless, a world premiere of sorts did occur on Monday afternoon, November 4, 1985. Before a select group of theater critics and other media representatives, with the public deliberately excluded, Fass- binder’s Garbage, the City and Death was finally performed on a theater stage ten and one-half years after its conception. This temporary accommodation may have abated the immediate crisis; however, it definitely failed to offera permanent and satisfactory resolution for the parties involved. In the last part of my presentation, I would briefly like to delineate the peculiar alliance and cleavages which developed in the course of this controversy. The pro-play representatives included among many others the vast majority of the Frankfurt left-wing intelligentsia, the10 Garbage, the City and Death city’s literati from center-Left to far Left, the Frankfurter Rundschau, the tageszeitung, virtually all the Greens, parts of the SPD, Theo Sommer and other key journalists of Die Zeit, and a small part of the Jewish Left. In the ambivalent middle I would place two very different and unlikely figures, both of whom — I am certain — would emphatically object to being grouped together. They are: Walter Wallmann, Frank- furt’s youthful “yuppie” mayor, who strongly believed that the play should not be performed under any circumstances yet refused to use state power to enforce his views, citing the importance of artistic freedom; and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the charismatic “sponti,” who ‘emerged as the only hero of this affair. Cohn-Bendit, like Walimann, maintained a foot in both camps. Unlike the city’s mayor, however, ‘Cohn-Bendit welcomed Fassbinder’s play and wanted it performed on its merits. Yet, he also rejoiced in the Jewish community's active stand agvinstthe play which he assesed — correcly in my opinion — asthis community's first decisively public stand in any political controversy in the postwar period. Lastly, theanti-play forces included mostof the CDU, the FDP, parts of the SPD, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Stiddeutsche Zeitung, Rudolph Augstein from Der Spiegel, Marion Countess Donhoff from Die Zeit, leading representatives of the two main Christian churches in the Federal Republic, and, of course, virtually the entire Jewish com- munity in Frankfurt and West Germany. Before elaborating briefly some of the motivations of these two opposing alliances, a few com- ‘ments are in order concerning the anti-play forces. The FDP's iberal- ism must have been overridden by itslatent philo-Semitism, which has traditionally been strong in the party's Frankfurt and Hesse branches. Moreover, the consensus between the trade unions and the Frankfurter, Allgemeine Zeitung on stopping the play was quite extraordinary. I was particularly suspicious of the Frankfurter Allegemeine Zeitung’s vehement anti-play and — at firstglance — pro-Jewish position, since itdid not fit with the paper’s editorical posture, especially following its reprehen- sible commentaries during the Bitburg incident. As to the reasons given by both sides, the pro-play forces first and foremost anchored their argument in the sanctity of the right to free speech and unimpeded artistic expression. “Webret den Anfangen!” [Beware of the beginnings!” they warned, reminding their opponents that Auschwitz, too, started with book burnings, suppression of thought, censorship ofthe arts and a general curtailment of personal freedoms Moreover, the pro-play advocates believed that it was better to deal with Germany's still considerable anti-Semitism as openly as possible rather than to keep it hidden under a fake veneer of civility. Some‘Markovits, Benhabib, Postone 11 voices on this coalition’s left-wing submitted a particularly disturbing. and ahistorical defense of the play by arguing that the Jews were like everybody else and thus should not be spared criticisms, or even denun- ciations, to which nobody else in West German society was immune. The fact that many leftists, who heretofore, would have sided with the Jews against the Right under similar circumstances, were invoking the “universalistic language of liberalism, testifies to the rapid disappearance ofthe Jews’ “Auschwitz bonus” in the Federal Republic. Another com- mon argument in defense of the play's performance was the view that Fassbinder ’s “Rich Jew” was the only humane and decent character in the play, and that he would inevitably win the sympathies of any thinking audience. The final — and to my mind, most convincing — argument of the play's supporters was their condemnation of the political orien- tation and motivations of certain core elements within the anti-play forces, among whom they correctly detected some of the most conser- vative figures in West German public life. It was precisely these forces which, in past debates of importance to the Jews — expiration of the statute of limitations for Nazi war crimes and Bitburg being just two examples — always lined up against Jewish interests on the side of Ger- man “victimization.” ‘The anti-play forces anchored their arguments first and foremost i what they perceived as the blatant anti-Semitism of the play. Com- pounding this was the fact that in their eyes Garbage was just that, ie., trash; Fassbinder had written a poor play which was being produced merely because its author had accumulated worldwide fame (or notor- ety) and because, by producing it, those associated with the production would achieve a certain fame/notoriety of their own. Prominent in the arsenal of the anti-play forces wasa different interpretation of “Wehret den Anfingen.” According to this coalition, the play would add to an already alarming revival of open anti-Semitism in the Federal Repub- lic. By contributing to making anti-Semitism once again salonfthig in the successor state to the Third Reich, the play would inevitably bear incalculable consequences. Letting it all hang out, so to speak, may have some psychological justification and may indeed be morally cor- rect in abstract situations, but barely four decades after the fall of the Nazis, certain restraints are not only politically prudent, but also ethically imperative. It is in this context that I would like to conclude my remarks by paraphrasing Marion Countess Dénhoff's most insightful point in her passionate plea against the showing of Garbage. Inverting Heinrich Heine's famous dictum that the Jews are like everybody else, except more so, Dénhoff argues that after Auschwitz the Germans, in relation to the Jews, are like everybody else, except more so. Deeply convinced12. Garbage, the City and Death by this argument, I believe that Fassbinder’s Garbage should indeed be performed in Paris or New York, though not yet in Frankfurt. SEYLA BENHABIB: Let me begin by echoing the point that Andy made at the very beginning. I too have been rather ambivalent about the play. I first read it two years ago in the context of a discussion in a Jewish left group in Frankfurt, which at the time was preparing to pro- test the intention of Schwab, director of the Old Opera, to putthe play ‘on stage. And my impression at the time was, indeed, Garbage, the City and Death is a piece of trash: itis avant-gardist art,, psychoanalysis for beginners, and it parades prejudices without working them out or resolving them. And I had a gut feeling of repugnance at most charac- ters of the play. Since then something has changed in me, in my reaction to the play, and when I reread it several days ago in preparation for this talk, I noticed dimensions in itwhich I had missed before. I have come to the conclusion that the play is not about anti-Semitism. It is about some- thing else in which anti-Semitism playsa role. Now I don't quite know how to account for the transformation in my attitude, but what I feel has happened is partly a kind of purging effect. The worst arguments have been already voiced in the German public sphere, and I feel less offended and upset by the play because I have in my own mind — and via the public discussion — gone through the various interpretations, and the play feels less threatening to me than it did two years ago. It seems to me that Fassbinder's play has become a metaphor. In fact, the main theme I want to develop concerns what happens when allegory becomes metaphor. The play itself is an allegory, and in becoming a metaphor it involves some very complicated, symbolic jensions. This is nota social realistic play about the housing battles in Frankfurt. Rather, the play has becomeametaphor for how, 40 years after the end of the Second World War, Germans and Jews understand the meaning of their past, how they remember it, and the images of self and other they're willing to live with. The Garbage, the City and Death is an allegorical play. Some call it, in fact, a Christian morality play. The allegory concerns the metropolis, the big city that eats ts children, a city which has becomeas uninhabit ableas the moon. The play, as Dan Diner has correctly remarked, is not about what is taking place on stage — the performance — but what is taking place around the city and in the streets of the city. Therefore, itis no longer possible to dissociate Fassbinder’s play from the context of meaning and interpretation into which it has fallen, This context is captured in short phrases like, “Forty years after,” “normalization,” “the willingness to forgive,” and as Chancellor Helmut Kohl stated it, the wish of the grandchildren and the children to free themselves from‘Markovits, Benhabib, Postone 13 the history of their parents and to emerge into the European com- Fassbinder himself did not live to experience Bitburg, the award of the Goethe Prize to Ernst Jiinger by the city of Frankfurt, nor the failure of the Bundestag to pass a law exclusively concerning the denial of the ‘Jewish Holocaust. I doubt that Fassbinder would have been surprised, ‘AS the iconoclast and outcast of German post-war respectability, he ‘would have probably found in these recent events aconfirmation of his doubts and fears concerning what lay below the veneer of reconstruc- tion and respectability in the Federal Repbulic. Yet, in the present co! text, Fassbinder’s play has not been seen byits critics as the destroyer of the myth of normality, which itis. Instead, itis viewed as an extension of the logic of normalization. Itis seen as anti-Semitism that disguises itself as anti-capitalism, as anti-Jewish resentment presented in psy- choanalytic language for beginners, or in the words of Augstein, as anti-Semitism that dresses itself up as philo-Semitism. Matters would be simpleif one could clearly distinguish between the text of Fassbinder’s play and the context of its reception and say that it is the context of its reception which is creating the charge of anti- Semitism, not the text itself. However, in the case of a theatrical play, oneis actually dealing with a three-fold reality. We have to be aware of the many layers of symbolic dimension. A play isa text, but one which is meant to be staged, and the staging itself is an interpretation. Then there is the reception of this interpretation, the understanding of this interpretation by the audience once the play is staged. The recent stag- ing of Fassbinder’s play, according to a large consensus — I have not seen itmyself — bentover backwards in an attempt to remove from the play what appeared to be its most offensive feature, namely, the presence ofacharacter named ‘der reiche Jude,” the Rich Jew. In the perform- ance, this character was instead called Herr A or Mr. A. And although Mr. A, or the Rich Jew, is referred to in the play as fat and ugly, the par- ticular staging gave him a suave, worldly, wise, and sensitive character, and indeed, he does appear as the most attractive character. This has led some theater critics to charge that this particular performance was trying so hard to repress what was unpleasant that it ended up giving a positive meaning to what Fassbinder left ambiguous. Thus, I think we cannot fully capture the meaning of a play simply from reading a text because we miss the level of mediation and interpretation. Neverthe- less, I want to ask the question, why call Fassbinder’s play an allegory, and how can an allegory become a metaphor? The Garbage, the City and Death is a short text — barely 50 pages and divided into two parts. The first consists of eight scenes, and the second consists of three. The stage directions for the first scene of the first part14 Garbage, the City and Death tell us — and this is a direct reference to Zwerenz's book — that the scene takes place on the moon, precisely because itis as uninhabitable as the earth. The so-called housing battles over the modernization of an area in Frankfurt called Westend provide the immediate backdrop for the portrait of the Rich Jew, who is widely believed to have been modeled after Ignaz Bubis, a real estate speculator and developer, and currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Jewish Com- munityin Frankfurt. In the play, this historical context concerning the role of Bubis — or the Rich Jew — in the destruction and moderniza- tion of the Westend is alluded to several times. The play, in typical Fassbinder fashion, opens with a breakfast among prostitutes discussing the consequences of having denounced ‘one of their pimps. The Rich Jew, who is offstage as the play opens, sends in two of his companions, the litle prince and the dwarf, to solicit one of the prostitutes. Later, he himself comes on the scene and sees that the prostitutes who are waiting around are freezing. He says, “The cities are cold, and therefore the people in them freeze. Why do they build themselves such cities?” The dwarf starts howling with laughter, and the prostitutes ask why he is laughing. The dwarf ex- plains he’s laughing because the Rich Jew buys old houses tears them down, and constructs new ones. ‘The monologue by the Rich Jew in scene four is one of the most oft- ‘ited passages as evidence of the anti-Semitism of the play. I will present the passage in German, because itis important to catch some nuances. After all, we are dealing with a piece of literature. The Rich Jew begins: Wissen Sie, dass ich manchmal Angst habe? [Are you aware that sometimes I have angst?] This word (Angst) should remain untranslated because it is a crucial word in the play. Sie wissen es nicht, und warum auch. Die Geschifte gehen zu ‘gut, das will bestraft sein. Das schnt sich geradezu nach Strafe. Aber statt Strafe 24 empfangen, straftes, das Augstliche —ich tiv] {You don’t know it, and why should you? Business is, ‘going too well. That will be punished. That longs for punishment. But, instead of experiencing punish- ment, it punishes that anxious one, [| Here Fassbinder is discussing the unconscious and the consciousness of this individual: “I punish,” the Rich Jew says. Then the Rich Jew turns to the prostitute:‘Markovits, Benhabib, Postone 15 Sie sind schon, scheint mir. Aber das ist egal. Sie konnten sein, wie Sie wollten, Schinket, wem ist das genug, [It seems to me you're beautiful. But that's irrelevant. You could be however you want to be. Beauty, for whom has that ever been sufficient.] Next comes the passage that is so often cited: Ickhaufealte Hituserin dieser Stadt, resse sie ab, baue neue, die verkaufe ich gut. Die Stade schitzt mick, das muss sie. Zudem bin ich Jude. Der Polizeiprsident ist mein Freund, was man so Freund nennt, der Biirgermeister ldt mick gern ein, auf die Stadtverordneten kann ich ihlen. Gewiss — heiner schitzt das, besonders, was er da zulisst — aber der Plan ist nicht meiner, der war da, ehe ich kam, Es muss mir egal sein, ob Kinder weinen, ob Alte, Gebrechliche leiden, es muss mir egal sein, [1 buy old houses in this city, tear them down, build new ones and sell them for a profit. The city protects me. Ithasto. Lam, first ofall, a Jew. The Chief of Police is my friend, for what it’s worth, the Mayor likes to invite me over. I can count on the members of the City, Council. To be sure, none of them particularly appre- ciates what he is allowing, but the plan is not mine, it was there when I came. [must not care whether children weep, whether old people are harmed, I must not care] The Rich Jew is saying the city needs the unscrupulous businessman, ‘who enables it to change itself. Despite this background, the play is, I believe, not about real-estate speculation, Jewish capital, or even anti-Semitic prejudice, although these are all themes in the play. It is about the metropolis, the big city. Icis about those who live in its pits: prostitutes, pimps, homosexuals, transvestites, and the Rich Jew, who happens to be a customer of the prostitute, Roma B. It'sa play about despair, aboutangst. Each of the major charactersin the play speaks of angst. The play examines the inhumanity of humans toward each other, and of the city toward them all. In his own way, Fassbinder has tried to write a symphony of the big city by letting those most down-trodden and desperate come to voice in it. And as one of the prostitutes in the play, Miss Violet, laments, the city becomes bigger day by day, the human in it becomes smaller and smaller. The objection by those who argue that the play is anti-Semitic would run as follows: Is it not precisely a basic motive of all modern anti-16 Garbage, the City and Death Semitism to portray the Jew, especially the rich Jew, as part of that dehumanizing and abstract power of modern society that destroys, alienates, and uproots a national community? After all, the theme of linking Judaism and capital, Jewishness and modernization, Jewish- ness and the impersonality of the metropolis is not a new theme in modern anti-Semitism. Is the Jew, in that sense, not the destroyer of Gemeinschaft, the representative of the cosmopolitan, lifeless principles, the principle of money. Fassbinder is clearly conscious of this motive of modern anti-Semitism and has one of his most unsavory characters of the play, Hans von Gluck, express it. This passage is also cited very frequently in the discussion. And it’s even more offensive than the pre- vious passage. Hans von Gluck says: Er saugt uns aus, der Jud. Trinkt unser Blut und setzt uns ins Unrecht, weil er Jud ist und wir die Schuld tragen. Ich grible ‘und griible und zerre an meinen Neruen und sterbe eigentlich ‘aus, Ich wache nachts auf, und leibhaftig den Tod vor Augen ist, rir die Kehle wie zugeschnit. Das sind Bilder, sagt mein Ver- tand, Mythen aus der Vorzeit der Vater. Und.es sticht auf der lin- hen Seite. Istes das Herz, frag ich mich, oder die Gallenblase? Und Schuld hat der Jud, weil er uns schuldig macke, denn er ist da. Wai er geblieben, wo er herkam, oder hitten sie thn vergast, ich kinnte heute besser schlafen. Sie haben vergessen, ihn 21 vergassen. Das ist kein Witz, so denkt es in mir. (11, x] [He sucks our life’s blood, the Jew, drinks our blood and puts us in the wrong because he’s a Jew, and we bear the guilt. [ ponderand ponder and tug atmy nerves and I become extinct. I wake up at night, and death incarnate before my eyes and I'm choking. My brain tells metheseare the only pictures, myths from the past of our fathers. And it stings on my left side. Ts that my heart, ask myself, or my gall-bladder? And the Jew is to blame for making us guilty by being here. Had he stayed where he came from, or had they gassed him, I'd sleep beter today. They forgot to gashim. Thisisno joke. This is how I think] ‘A better translation of that last line is: “this is how it thinks in me.” Notice here that Fassbinder uses the passive voice: “Es denkt in mir.” Despite the offensiveness of this language we have to ask where Fassbinder himself is standing as his characters utter these words. The mere fact that such statements are made ina play is not proof of its anti- Semitism. Unfortunately, itseems to me that itis precisely at this point where Fassbinder fails his audience: he does not make his dispositionMarkovits, Benhabib, Postone 17 clear. These statements are not interpreted. They are placed in no con- text. The play portrays prejudice without dealing with its roots, or bringing it to what I would call a redemptive resolution, There is no moment of humanity that breaks through this insanity of prejudice towardsa reconciliation of the parties involved. These statements hang around the plot, which itselfis as banal as itis aggressive in its attempts to épater les bourgeas. Let me recount briefly the outlines of the plot. The Rich Jew be- comes a regular customer of the prostitute Roma B., whose pimp of Yugoslav origin, Franz B., a homosexual, is brutalized in one of the later scenes of the play by various characters for his homosexuality. Among his tormentors is the chief of police, Miiller II. The involve- mentof the Rich Jew with Roma. isaccounted for by the fact — this is an important dimension — thather father, Herr Miller, an old Nazi, is believed by the Rich Jew to have been responsible for the death of his parents. Herr Miller is himselfa transvestite, who takes the clothes off his wheelchair-ridden wife. In one key scene, Roma B. finally understands that the Rich Jew is having an affair with her and trying to make her his mistress because he ‘wants to get back at her father. She confronts her father, with whom she’s also said to have an incestuous relationship, about this fact, and asks: What does the Rich Jew have against you? Herr Milller replies that the Rich Jew thinks he was to blame for the death of his parents. Roma. counters, “but times have changed,” and her father says heno longer feels guilty for what he did. The times may have changed, he declares, but fascism will once again triumph. Many critics have failed to comment on the rather heavy-handed significance of the fact that the Nazi is a transvestite, becoming some- thing at night that he is not during the day. [think thisis an allegory for the way in which Fassbinder sees West German society. He finds fascism lurking beneath the complacent exterior of technocratic capitalism, ‘As I mentioned, the chief of police is called Miiller IL. Who is Miller 1? Fassbinder doesn’t tell us, but it’s obvious that i's Roma B.’s father. Fassbinder’s message seems to be that society is full of crypto-Nazis. This confusing array of characters meets one another, but does not really interact with each other. They speak, but they do not com- municate, The crucial scene between Roma B. and the Rich Jew is left fatally ambiguous. After the brutalization of Franz, her pimp and lover, Romano longer wants tive. Sheasks the Rich Jew to kill her, todo her at least the last favor of ending her life. The Rich Jew, upon her request, kills her. The litle prince, who works for the Rich Jew, comes upon the scene and says something which often gets omitied in the discussion.18° Garbage, the City and Death (Oh mein Got, ich danke dir. Er hat sie getitet, er hat sich selbst disqualifiier,er hat sie geliebt, Wer liebt, der hat seine Rechte verspielt (11, xi) [Oh God, I thank you. He killed her. He disqualified himself. It is clear he loved her. He who loves forfeits his rights. So the interpretation of the little prince is that the Rich Jew ultimately Kills Roma B., not simply because she asked for it, but Because he had fallen in love with her, and to have fallen in love with the daughter of his, ‘own executioners might have been too much for him. But this is a small statement which does not get interpretated in the play. We only have the evidence of the little prince as to what could have been the motivation of the Rich Jew in killing Roma B. The final scene in the play shows the Chief of Police, Miiller II, and another of his cohorts, Kraus, hearing the testimony of the little prince, who stands to receive the Rich Jew’s money upon the latter's imprison- ment. They try o rid themselves of this unwanted witness, and they do so by throwing him out of the window of the building. Then the brutalized corpse of Franz B. is dragged onto the scene and presented as the body of the murderer of Roma B. Is Fassbinder’s point then, that the Rich Jew himself is also the vic- tim of the system that dehumanizes all? Did he really kill Roma B. out of love? Did he have to kill at the moment he loved her? Oris the Rich Jew the one who gets away with murder, who has a kind of immunity ‘because he has been a victim in the system that makes victims of everybody involved? There is no easy answer to this question. The play remains fatally abmiguous, and we have wolive with thisambiguity. But my final point is as follows: this play is about victims, outsiders, the “others”. It is about the woman as a commodity, as prostitute, the homosexual and the Jew. It may beno accident that only a female com- mentator, writing in Pflasterstrand, asked why it was that in a play full of victims everyone chose to focus on the issue of anti-Semitism alone, and not on the solidarity among the outsiders, the victims of respect" able, bourgeois, Christian society? Why is the treatment of women in the play less offensive to us than the treatment of Jews? This question is important because it has been at the heart of Fass- binder’s work, atleast the parts of his work that I know. For Fassbinder, the victims become as brutal as the victimizers, and the desired sol” idarity of the oppressed does not come to pass. I think that, like Foucault, Fassbinder 's perspective on society is that of the outsider, the alien, the other. And as in Foucault’s work, the victim is portrayed always from the perspective of the one who victimizes and has power.